Crossroads - Summer 2014

Quite recently, near-identical resumes were sent to faculty members to evaluate candidates for a lab manager position. Half were named John and half were named Jennifer [ 1]. Jennifer was seen as less competent, more likable, less likely to be considered worth mentoring, and offered a starting salary of $26,508 versus John’s $30,238. Even more striking was the fact that there were no differences in how the candidates were ranked by male or female faculty, younger or older professors, or across the disciplines of physics, biology, and chemistry.

Quite germane to technology, a fas-
cinating series of studies were done
by Sapna Cheryan at the University of
Silicon Valley prides itself on being a perfect meritocracy, but there is an endless earch for short cuts, or “pattern recognition,” that can be used to spot the next hugely successful entrepreneurs: Male (usually Caucasian, but Asian is OK, too), young, educated at elite institutions (whether graduated or not), and highly technical.

If that really is the pattern that reflects the best and brightest, then is it the case that
women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups are just devoid of the skills and
intelligence necessary to succeed in this industry? Or, as more recently gets asserted, is it
Washington, and colleagues at other
institutions, exploring what impact
the physical work environment might
have on female computer scientists’
interest in working there. Simple
changes such as swapping a nature
poster for a “Star Trek” poster were
shown to boost undergraduate wom-
en’s interest.

All of the advantages of diversity—
ideas for startups born of different
lived experience, new approaches to
problem-solving and managing—can
only be achieved if we challenge the
belief that there is only one best way to
run a meeting or a company or there is
one type of qualified candidate for ev-
ery job. These beliefs may hold a grain
a pipeline problem? Is not enough tal-
ent reaching the desks of the recruit-
ment managers?

Most of us would like to believe we really are gender-blind and color-blind, that we judge others based on their individual merit and not by their gender or ethnicity. But is that true? Thanks to advances in neuroscience, we’re learning a lot more about how we make decisions, especially at the unconscious level, and raising fundamental doubts about this self-belief.

Dozens of fascinating studies demonstrate that merely changing identifying information on a resume, a theater script, or a journal article dramatically alters how likely it is to be accepted.

Most people like to believe they judge others on their merits, and not by
their gender or ethnicity. Neuroscience has shown this isn’t always the case,
so what can we do about it?
By Freada Kapor Klein and Ana Díaz-Hernández